March 7, 1902

CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

The statement was made on the floor of this House that six months after this commission met, certain proceedings occurred before that commission, and Sir Louis Davies was sent home for the purpose of pressing Canada's view on the Imperial government, but that Canada was not supported by the Imperial authorities. The hon. member (Mr. Bour-assa) says that such a statement was made previously by Sir Louis Davies, and by the right hon. Prime Minister, and we have the fact that the Prime Minister when speaking to-day never denied the charge of the hon. member (Mr. Bourassa), that the action of the commission was not Supported by the Imperial government. The hon. member for Labelle told us that in making that statement he was only repeating what Sir Louis Davies and what the Prime Minister had previously said.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I rise to a point of order. I have never stated either in this debate or in any other debate, that the action of the

Anglo-American Commission during its sittings was not supported by the British government. Never did I make that statement to-day nor on any other day. What I have stated is, that after the case was laid in the hands of the British government, the British government took such action that one of our commission was obliged to go there to dissipate their prejudices. That was tlie only statement I have made.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

I quite understand the fine point which the hon. gentleman has made. He did not state in this House that anything occurred before the commission, or that the commissioners appointed by the Imperial authorities or any of them, had not supported the contentions of Canada ; but that some things which had been recommended by that commission were pressed upon the British Imperial government by Sir Louis Davies, and had not received the sanction or support of that government.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
LIB
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Is not that what you said, Sir ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

Yes, that is right.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) says that he has not published that for the first time, but he was secretary of that commission, he knew the facts, he knew all the circumstances and whether or not it was the opinion of Sir Louis Davies and the Prime Minister, he had at all events given that statement his imprimatur when he quoted it.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I must remind him that I was not acting as secretary when that occurred. My action as secretary ceased the day of the adjournment at Washington some time in February, 1899, while the matters which I have been referring to did not happbn until six months after.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

I am glad to hear the explanation of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) because I thought he was secretary of that commission at this very moment.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

I am officially, but I mean actually. Since that I have never acted.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

I am the secretary theoretically, if you prefer the word.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

We will not consider it a precedent. I believed myself that the whole discussion was out of order, and I drew attention to it, but the Prime Minister stated that on going into Supply we had a right to discuss all these matters.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

Not a previous debate.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was discussing a past debate.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

We can discuss, even a question which has been previously discussed, on a motion to go into Supply, but we must not refer to a previous debate. I am sorry to have to say that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) went a little too far in that regard. Not only did he give a personal explanation, but he entered into a discussion of the matter. I therefore do not like to stop the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) in his argument, but I would ask that this should not be taken as a precedent.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Oh, am I to understand that you have acted in a dual capacity, first as Imperial secretary and then as Canadian secretary ? At present the hon. gentleman is secretary of that commission he tells us, and we would like to know whether he is the Canadian secretary or the Imperial secretary. However, that does not bear on my argument. What I have stated is, that the hon. member (Mr. Bourassa) as secretary of that commission had full knowledge of the proceedings, and the very fact of his repeating what Sir Louis Davies said, gives that statement the imprimatur of the secretary. We should know about this. There is something which was pressed on the Imperial authorities and of which we have no knowledge whatever. Now, what is that ? Let us hear of it. We are entirely in the dark as to what contention was made by Sir Louis Davies and the commissioners. The other day the hon. member (Mr. Bourassa) made a statement in this House which was thought so important that a denial was obtained from Sir Louis Davies, one of the Supreme Court judges, and we witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of the Prime Minister, who is a member of the commission, sitting still in his seat and not offering a word of contradiction.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

Contradict what 1

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

The hon. member for Labelle made the statement that the Imperial government had refused to sanction some of the wishes and some of the aspirations that a majority of the commission had urged upon the commission for the purpose of settling our claim.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

He never said that.

Topic:   SUPPLY-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Subtopic:   L. H. DAVIES.
Permalink

March 7, 1902